You are on page 1of 5

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region Pasig City

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, -versusRomulo Takad, Accused, Crim. Case No.12345-H Violation of R.A. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act)

X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Defendant by counsel respectfully submits its memorandum in the case:

The Case The People of the Philippines charges Romulo Takad with the crime of violation of Republic Act 6539 or otherwise known as Anti-Carnapping Act for stealing the tricycle from Carlos Parlade, the assignee of the tricycle, after Ms. Lacsamana, line-in partner of the accused, failed to pay the balance of P 14,000 for the installment of the tricycle. The accused denies the charges against him. The Facts Zenny Aguirre, account officer of BDC Corporation gave her version of the events. In May 2003, Ma. Teresa Lacsamana obtained a loan from BDC Corporation amounting to P 80,000 which is payable within 30 months. Loan was evidenced my Kasunduan between the SCCPPTODA and BCD Corporation, promissory note and chattel mortgage. After the loan was granted, the BDC Corporation released the tricycle to Ms. Lacsamana. Ms. Lacsamana failed to pay the loan and on October 2, 2003, BDC pulled out the tricycle in pursuant to the Kasunduan that if the borrowers were unable to pay, the tricycle could be pulled out from him. The tricycle was placed under the temporary management of the treasurer of the group and BDC took it, and Ms. Lacsamana was

given until October 17, to pay for her to redeem the tricycle. On October 18, Ms. Lacsamana and Mr. Takad went to the office of BCD Corporation to pay the outstanding balance of their loan but the corporation didnt grant their request due to failure to pay on time. After the corporation didnt allow Mr. Lacsamana and Takad to pay the outstanding balance, Takad said Huwag na huwag kong makikita yang tricycle sa Pasig. The tricycle was kept by the corporation until November 20 and transferred it to the new assignee named Carlos Paredes. On November 21, at 1:00am, Carlos Paredes informed Ms. Zenny Aguire that the tricycle was missing. Carlos Parlade, the new assignee of the tricycle gave his version of the events. On November 21, 2003, at around 1:00 am, at the residence of Mr. Parlade, Mr. Parlade saw the accused Takad, pushing the tricycle away. Mr. Parlade shouted at the Mr. Takad but the accused faced him and kicked him and drove away. Mr. Carlos Parlade reported the incident to Zenny Aguire and on 1:30 in the afternoon of the same day, they reported to the police station. The incident was said to be witnessed by Mario Mankas, neighbor of Carlos Parlade. Mario Mankas saw Carlos Parlade running after the tricycle that was stolen.

The Issues The Court defined the issues in this case in its pre-trial as follows: 1. Whether or not BGC Corporation owns the tricycle. 2. Whether or not Romulo Takad is guilty of violating Republic Act 6539 or otherwise known as Anti Carnapping Law.

Arguments I. BGC Corporation does not own the tricycle. Ms. Lacsamana is the owner of the tricycle. Here is the TSN of the cross-examination conducted by Atty. Cruz to Ms. Zenny Aguirre, the account officer of BDC Corporation, the portion is as follows:

Atty. Cruz: Did you get a court order transferring ownership of the tricycle from Ms. Lacsamana to BGC Corporation before you took the tricycle? Zenny Aguirre: No, sir. Atty. Cruz: Did you get a court order authorizing you to take the tricycle from Ms. Lacsamana? Zenny Aguirre: no, sir Atty. Cruz: You took it from her because she could not pay her debt, right? Zenny Aguirre: Yes, sir. Atty. Cruz: Did you make an effort to buy the tricycle from Ms. Lacsamana before it was stolen? Zenny Aguirre: No, sir. Atty. Cruz: it is your understanding that when she did not pay her debt, the ownership of the tricycle is automatically transferred to BDC, is that right? Zenny Aguirre: No, sir, since she had not paid her obligation, BDC owns the tricycle. Atty. Cruz: Let us make it clear, you said that BDC loaned Ms. Lacsamana the money, which she used to buy the tricycle; it was not BDC that brought the tricycle, it was Ms. Lacsamana who brought the tricycle? Zenny Aguirre: Yes, sir Atty. Cruz: Who is the owner of the tricycle? Zenny Aguirre: Ma. Teresa Lacsamana is the owner of the tricycle. But the money used in buying the tricycle was the money of BDC.

The money used to buy the tricycle was the group loan obtained from BDC Corporation by SCCPPTODA which Ms. Lacsamana is a member. The loan agreement between BCD Corporation and SCCPPTODA was evidenced by the Kasunduan marked as Exhibit A. It is true that the money used to by the tricycle was the loan obtained by Ms. Lacsamana from BDC but the tricycle was brought not by BDC but by Ms

Lacsamana. Therefore, the owner of the tricycle was not BDC Corporation but Ms. Lacsamana. Ms. Lacsamana will not cease to be the owner of the tricycle by her failure to comply with her obligations. According to the Kasunduan between BGC Corporation and SCCPPTODA which states: 15.1 Kapag ang isang kasapi ay hindi makapagbigay ng tatlong karampatang arawang hulog-bayad sa loob ng isang kinsenas o napapaloob sa isang tseke sa BDC, ang kanyang tricycle ay hahatakin ng SAMAHAN kasama ang linya (TODA) at prangkisa at ito ay pangangasiwaan ng SAMAHAN para sa darating na arawang hulog-bayad ng kasaping nagkasala. 15.2 Ang nahatak na tricycle ay mananatili sa pangangasiwa ng SAMAHAN hanggat hindi lubos na nababayaran ang nagging pagkukulang sa SAMAHAN. 15.3. Ang tricycle na mula sa inutang sa BDC ay hindi maaaring isanla, ibenta o ilipat ng pagmamay-ari hanggat hindi pa lubusang nababayaran ang pagkakautang sa BDC.

In pursuant to the Kasunduan, failure of the members of SAMAHAN to pay their obligations, the tricycle could be pulled out from the owner and will be under the temporary management of the treasurer of the SAMAHAN until the obligation are finally settled. The Kasunduan between BGC Corporation and SCCPPTODA didnt state that failure of a member to pay their obligation due would automatically transfer the ownership of the tricycle to BGC Corporation.

II.

Romulo Takad did not violate Republic Act 6539 or otherwise known as Anti-Carnapping Law of 1972 Section 2 of Republic Act 6539 defined Carnapping as:

Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things In connection with the definition of Carnapping stated in Section 2 of Republic Act 6539, Romulo Takad did not commit the crime of Carnapping because it is the taking with intent to gain; a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latters consent. Assuming that the said vehicle that was taken away by the defendant, he cannot be convicted with the crime of Carnapping under Republic Act 6539 because the tricycle was owned not by BGC Corporation or Carlos Parlade. The owner of the tricycle is Ms. Lacsamana, the live-in partner of the defendant.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this Honorable Court to render judgment: 1. To dismiss the case against the defendant. Other forms of relief and remedies are just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Ericka Raye B. Singson March 20, 2012 PTR No. 0000000; 02-29-2012; Quezon City IBP No. 0000000; 02-29-2012; Mandaluyong City Roll No. 00000 564 Sampaguita St. Ayala Homes Mandaluyong City

Copy furnished: Atty. Isidro De Leon Prosecutor III